UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No PAUL GREEN SCHOOL OF ROCK MUSIC FRANCHISING, LLC. JIM R. SMITH, Appellant.
|
|
- Della Gray
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No PAUL GREEN SCHOOL OF ROCK MUSIC FRANCHISING, LLC. v. JIM R. SMITH, Appellant. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (D.C. Civ. Action No ) District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 11, 2010 Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES, and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge (Opinion Filed: August 2, 2010) OPINION Jim R. Smith ( Smith ) appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania s confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of Paul
2 Green School of Rock Music Franchising, LLC ( School of Rock ) on the ground that the arbitrator s award constituted manifest disregard of the law. For the reasons explained below, we will affirm the District Court s decision. I. BACKGROUND We write solely for the parties and recount only the essential facts. This dispute arises out of a music franchise Smith purchased from School of Rock. The franchise agreement (the Agreement ) between the parties included an arbitration clause, which provided that disputes, claims, or controversies relating to the Agreement that could not be resolved by mediation would be settled by arbitration conducted by the American Arbitration Association ( AAA ) in Philadelphia. The Agreement also stated that it shall be interpreted and construed exclusively under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. School of Rock submitted to the AAA a demand for arbitration. In the demand, School of Rock claimed that Smith did not properly report his royalties to School of Rock. On March 12, 2008, Smith filed, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, a motion to compel arbitration in California. The grounds of the motion were that the forum-selection and choice-of-law provisions in the arbitration clause of the Agreement are unenforceable because they are unconscionable under California law. 2
3 On May 5, 2008, the United States District Court for the District of California issued an opinion and order denying Smith s motion. Smith v. Paul Green Sch. of Rock Music Franchising, LLC (School of Rock I), No. CV , 2008 WL (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2008). The court held that the forum selection and choice of law provisions of the Agreement are enforceable, but noted that its holding was contingent on Smith s ability to pursue his [California Franchise Investment Law] rights and remedies during arbitration in the Pennsylvania forum. Id. at *5. The court further prohibited School of Rock from taking a position before the arbitrator that would be inconsistent with the representations made here in seeking enforcement of forum selection and choice of law provisions. Id. The relevant representation School of Rock made was that Smith s rights under the [California Franchise Investment Law] will not be diminished by enforcement of arbitration in Pennsylvania. Id. On April 1, 2008, School of Rock filed an amended demand for arbitration with the AAA in Philadelphia. School of Rock sought an injunction, an award of money damages, and attorney s fees and costs. Smith answered School of Rock s claims, and filed counterclaims, pursuant to the California Franchise Investment Law ( CFIL ). The parties filed pre-arbitration briefs on July 31, In its pre-arbitration brief, School of Rock addressed substantively Smith s CFIL counterclaims, in accord with School of 1 Rock I. 1 Smith does not argue that School of Rock violated the terms of School of Rock I. 3
4 On November 18, 2008, the arbitrator issued his award. First, the arbitrator found that Smith breached the Agreement, and required Smith to pay $401,748 to School of 2 Rock. Second, the arbitrator dismissed Smith s CFIL counterclaims. Third, the arbitrator enforced the Agreement s post-termination restrictive covenant, which provided: The Respondent shall not, for a continuous uninterrupted period of two (2) years commencing upon the date hereof, either directly or indirectly, for itself, or through, on behalf of, or in conjunction with any person or legal entity, own, maintain, operate, engage in, be employed by, provide assistance to, or have any interest in (as owner or otherwise) any business that (a)(1) is substantially similar to a Paul Green School of Rock school; or (ii) offers or sells services that are the same as or similar to the services being offered by the Franchised Business under the System, including but not limited to, music instruction or live music performances; and (b) is, or is intended to be, located at or within: Agoura Hills, California; Ten (10) miles of Agoura Hills, California; or Ten (10) miles of any business operating under the Paul Green School of Rock Music System and the Proprietary Marks. On November 21, 2008, School of Rock filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act ( FAA ), 9 U.S.C. 9, in the District 3 Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On January 12, 2009, Smith filed an 2 The arbitrator also ordered that Smith shall pay all costs associated with the arbitration proceeding. 3 Section 9 of the FAA provides, in pertinent part: 4
5 answer and affirmative defenses to School of Rock s motion. Among other arguments, Smith asserted that the arbitrator showed a manifest disregard of the law by (a) ignoring the CFIL, and (b) enforcing the Agreement s post-termination restrictive covenant, which violates the California Business and Professional Code. In an opinion issued on February 17, 2009, the District Court granted School of Rock s motion to confirm the arbitration award. Paul Green Sch. of Rock Music Franchising, LLC v. Smith (School of Rock II), No. 08-cv-5507, 2009 WL (E.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 2009). On May 12, 2009, the District Court granted School of Rock s motion for judgment, ordered Smith to pay a money judgment of $416, plus interest to School of Rock, and enforced the Agreement s post-termination restrictive covenant. Smith appeals School of Rock II, arguing that the arbitrator s dismissal of Smith s CFIL counterclaims and enforcement of the post-termination restrictive covenant constitute manifest disregard of the law. II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW 9 U.S.C. 9. If the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration, and shall specify the court, then at any time within one year after the award is made any party to the arbitration may apply to the court so specified for an order confirming the award, and thereupon the court must grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title. If no court is specified in the agreement of the parties, then such application may be made to the United States court in and for the district within which such award was made. 5
6 The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. 9. Section 9 provides that an application to confirm an arbitrator s award may be made by the United States court in and for the district within which the award was made. The award was issued in Philadelphia. This Court has jurisdiction over the appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291, because the District Court issued a final decision disposing of all parties claims. In reviewing a district court s order confirming an arbitration award, we review that court s factual findings for clear error, and its legal conclusions de novo. China Minmetals Materials Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. v. Chi Mei Corp., 334 F.3d 274, 278 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, (1995)). III. ANALYSIS Section 10 of the FAA provides the limited grounds on which a district court may vacate an arbitration award: 4 4 Smith states the issue as whether the arbitrator s award constitutes a manifest disregard for the law under Title 9 U.S.C. 11. (Appellant s Br. at 1.) Smith, however, asks this Court to vacate, not modify, the arbitrator s award. (See Appellant s Br. at 19 ( For the foregoing reasons, Jim R. Smith prays this Court vacate the February 17, 2009 Order and May 12, 2009 Judgment in Paul Green s favor and against Jim R. Smith. ).) Vacatur is properly sought under 10 not 11, which addresses award modification. Further, we have applied the manifest disregard doctrine only in the context of 10 motions to vacate, and not in the context of 11 motions to modify. See Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003) ( the judicially created manifest disregard of the law standard allows a district court to vacate an arbitration award ); Local 863 Int l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am. v. Jersey Coast Egg Producers, Inc., 773 F.2d 530, 533 (3d Cir. 1985) ( An award may be set aside only in limited circumstances, for example, where the arbitrator s decision evidences manifest disregard for the law rather than an erroneous interpretation of the law. (citing Wilko v. 6
7 (1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them; (3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or (4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. 9 U.S.C. 10. Smith appeals the District Court s confirmation of the arbitrator s decision on the ground that the decision constitutes manifest disregard of the law. This Court has not yet addressed whether manifest disregard of the law remains a valid ground for vacating an arbitration award under the FAA, in the wake of the Supreme Court s decision in Hall 5 Street Assoc., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008). Prior to Hall Street, this Swan, 346 U.S. 427, 436 (1953))). Thus, we construe Smith s argument as one seeking vacatur of the arbitrator s award. See also School of Rock II, 2009 WL , at *3 (construing as a motion to vacate Smith s opposition to School of Rock s motion to confirm the arbitrator s award). 5 In Hall Street, the Supreme Court considered whether the FAA s grounds for prompt vacatur and modification may be supplemented by contract. 522 U.S. at 578. The Court held that the statutory grounds established in the FAA for prompt vacatur and modification are exclusive. Id. at 580. In so holding, the Court addressed the argument that expandable judicial review authority has been accepted as the law since Wilko v. Swan, in which the Court stated that the interpretations of the law by the arbitrators in contrast to manifest disregard [of the law] are not subject, in the federal courts, to judicial review for error in interpretation. Id. at 584 (modification in original) (quoting Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427, (1953)). In Hall Street, the party requesting vacatur argued that, under Wilko, judges can add grounds to vacate an arbitrator s decision, and that parties should also be able to add grounds for vacatur by agreement. Id. at 585. The Court disagreed: 7
8 Court, along with each of our sister circuits, had held that an arbitrator s decision may be vacated on the ground that the arbitrator exhibited manifest disregard for the law. See Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 370 (3d Cir. 2003) ( A district court may also vacate an arbitrator s decision where the arbitrator s decision evidence[s] a manifest disregard for the law rather than an erroneous interpretation of the law. (modification in original) (quoting Local 863 Int l Bhd. Of Teamsters v. Jersey Coast Egg Producers, Inc., 773 F.2d 530, 534 (3d Cir. 1985))); Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. Bacon, 562 F.3d 349, & 353 n.3 (5th Cir. 2009) (listing recognition of the manifest disregard doctrine by each circuit court of appeals). [T]his is too much for Wilko to bear. Quite apart from its leap from a supposed judicial expansion by contract, Hall Street overlooks the fact that the statement it relies on expressly rejects just what Hall Street asks for here, general review for an arbitrator s legal errors. Then there is the vagueness of Wilko s phrasing. Maybe the term manifest disregard was meant to name a new ground for review, but maybe it merely referred to the 10 grounds collectively, rather than adding to them. Or, as some courts have thought, manifest disregard may have been shorthand for 10(a)(3) or 10(a)(4), the paragraphs authorizing vacatur when the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct or exceeded their powers. Id. The Court did not, however, clearly state whether manifest disregard survived as a judicial, rather than as a contractual, ground for vacatur. See Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int l Corp., No , --- U.S. ----, 2010 WL , at *7 n.3 (2010) ( We do not decide whether manifest disregard survives our decision in Hall Street [] as an independent ground for review or as a judicial gloss on the enumerated grounds for vacatur set forth at 9 U.S.C. 10. ). 8
9 In the wake of Hall Street, a circuit split has emerged regarding whether manifest 6 disregard of the law remains a valid ground for vacatur. This Court has not yet entered that debate. See Bapu v. Choice Hotels Int l Inc., No , 2010 WL , at *3 (3d Cir. Mar. 16, 2010) ( While our sister circuits are split on this question [of whether manifest disregard of the law by an arbitrator would continue to exist as an independent basis for vacatur], we have yet to rule on it. ); Andorra Servs. Inc. v. Venfleet, Ltd., 355 F. App x 622, 627 (3d Cir. 2009) ( Whether [manifest disregard of the law] continues to exist today as an independent, viable ground for vacatur [is] an issue we need not decide, [because] this case does not evidence one of those extremely narrow circumstances supporting an issue to vacate. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Based on the facts of this case, we need not decide whether manifest disregard of the law remains, after Hall Street, a valid ground for vacatur. 6 On one hand, the Second and Ninth Circuits have held that manifest disregard survives Hall Street as a valid ground for vacatur, because arbitrators who exhibit manifest disregard for the law have exceeded their powers under 9 U.S.C. 10(a)(4). Comedy Club Inc. v. Improv W. Assocs., 553 F.3d 1277, 1290 (9th Cir. 2009); Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AnimalFeeds Int l Corp., 548 F.3d 85, (2d Cir. 2008), overruled on other grounds, No , --- U.S. ----, 2010 WL (2010); see also Coffee Beanery, Ltd. v. WW, L.L.C., 300 F. App x 415, (6th Cir. 2008) (holding, in an unpublished opinion, that manifest disregard survives Hall Street as a non-statutory ground for vacatur). On the other hand, the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have held that manifest disregard of the law is no longer a valid ground for vacatur post-hall Street. Frazier v. CitiFinancial Corp., LLC, Nos , , , --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL , at *10 (11th Cir. April 30, 2010); Citigroup Global Markets, 562 F.3d at 357; see also Ramos-Santiago v. United Parcel Serv., 524 F.3d 120, 124 n.3 (1st Cir. 2008) (stating, in dictum, that manifest disregard is no longer a valid ground for vacating or modifying an arbitral award). 9
10 Before Hall Street, this Court held that an arbitrator s award may be set aside only in limited circumstances, for example, where the arbitrator s decision evidences manifest disregard for the law rather than an erroneous interpretation of the law. Local 863, 773 F.2d at 533 (citing Wilko, 346 U.S. at 436); see also Dluhos, 321 F.3d at 370; Metromedia Energy, Inc. v. Enserch Energy Servs., Inc., 409 F.3d 574, 578 (3d Cir. 2005). The court may not reevaluate supposed inconsistencies in the arbitrator s logic or review the merits of the arbitrator s decision. Local 863, 773 F.2d at 534. Rather, as the Second Circuit explained in Stolt-Nielsen, the party seeking to vacate an arbitrator s decision on the ground of manifest disregard of the law must demonstrate that the arbitrator (1) knew of the relevant legal principle, (2) appreciated that this principle controlled the outcome of the disputed issue, and (3) nonetheless willfully flouted the governing law by refusing to apply it. 548 F.3d at 95. Smith contends that the District Court erred by confirming the arbitrator s award because the arbitrator failed to consider Smith s claims made pursuant to the CFIL, as required by School of Rock I. Specifically, Smith argues that School of Rock materially misrepresented that it taught music to its students, when students are not provided instruction by School of Rock on how to read or write music; and that it had a rock music curriculum, when the curriculum merely consisted of songs that School of Rock thought cool, without any correlation to skill level or technique. Smith also asserts that School 10
11 of Rock provided different terms in the Agreement than those provided to him at least fourteen days prior to its execution. The District Court found that the arbitrator specifically dismissed counterclaims that Smith made pursuant to [the] CFIL. School of Rock II, 2009 WL , at *3. The briefs supplied to the arbitrator by both the plaintiff and the defendant fully argued the counterclaims presented under CFIL; [School of Rock] did not argue that the CFIL claims should not be heard, but simply argued against them. Clearly, the arbitrator was aware of the CFIL claims and the arguments on both sides. Within his award the arbitrator specifically notes that he dismissed Smith s counterclaim, i.e. his CFIL claims. There is no evidence that the arbitrator consciously chose to ignore principle. [School of Rock] provided factual and legal argument against Smith s CFIL claims and the arbitrator clearly ruled in favor of [School of Rock]. Id. (citations omitted). These findings are uncontested by Smith, and refute his contention that the arbitrator ignored his CFIL counterclaims. Smith also argues that the arbitrator erroneously applied the law to these facts. Our case law makes clear that an arbitrator will not be found to have manifestly disregarded the law for alleged errors in its application. Local 863, 773 F.2d at 534. We agree with the District Court that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law regarding Smith s CFIL counterclaims. Finally, Smith argues that the arbitrator s decision to enforce the post-termination restrictive covenant against Smith constitutes manifest disregard of both California and Pennsylvania law. Smith s primary argument is that California Business and Professions Code which is not part of the CFIL and was not addressed by the District Court 11
12 in School of Rock I invalidates the Agreement s restrictive covenant, and that the arbitrator s decision to enforce the covenant thereby constitutes manifest disregard of the law. Section states: Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void. The District Court concluded that School of Rock I did not require the arbitrator to apply California law in this instance: While [the] CFIL [] was to be applied based on a choice of law analysis and representations made in the Central District of California Court by [School of Rock], the choice of law provision for Pennsylvania law was still held valid and enforceable in all other respects. Thus, this Court will not independently presume that California Business & Professions Code should have been applied by the arbitrator. School of Rock II, 2009 WL , at *3. The District Court need not have determined that Pennsylvania law applies to the restrictive covenant. Rather, it would have been enough to find that the arbitrator did not willfully flout known, governing law in reading School of Rock I to hold that California law does not apply to the restrictive covenant. Local 863, 773 F.2d at 533. Here, the arbitrator plainly did not willfully flout known, governing law, because, as the District Court observed, section is not part of the 7 CFIL. 7 The District Court further held that, even if section applied, it would still confirm the arbitrator s decision because School of Rock provided factual and legal support for the proposition that section does not apply to the usurpation of trade secrets. School of Rock II, 2009 WL , at *3. School of Rock alleged that Smith usurped trade secrets. See id. Here, too, we concur with the District Court s analysis. 12
13 Alternatively, Smith argues that the restrictive covenant is invalid under Pennsylvania law. The District Court concluded that the non-compete provision is valid under Pennsylvania law. School of Rock II, 2009 WL , at *3 (citing Piercing Pagoda, Inc. v. Hoffman, 351 A.2d 207 (Pa. 1976)). Piercing Pagoda upheld a restrictive covenant in the context of a franchisee/franchisor relationship. Piercing Pagoda, 351 A.2d at 211 (holding that a restrictive covenant will be upheld where a franchisor has a protectable interest in the sale of his franchise). As previously noted, the District Court need not have determined that Pennsylvania law permits restrictive covenants of the type at issue here. It is enough for a court to determine that, as was true in this case, an arbitrator s decision was not a willful flouting of known, governing law. Local 863, 773 F.2d at 533. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court s confirmation of the arbitrator s decision. 13
Case 3:09-cv B Document 17 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID 411 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:09-cv-01860-B Document 17 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID 411 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION FLOZELL ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-CV-1860-B
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2014 GRINDSTONE CAPITAL, LLC MICHAEL KENT ATKINSON
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1579 September Term, 2014 GRINDSTONE CAPITAL, LLC v. MICHAEL KENT ATKINSON Kehoe, Friedman, Eyler, James R. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv AT. versus
Case: 11-15587 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 1 of 16 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-15587 D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-02975-AT SOUTHERN COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 4:09-cv-02005-CDP Document #: 32 Filed: 01/24/11 Page: 1 of 15 PageID #: 162 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION BRECKENRIDGE O FALLON, INC., ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationCase 2:16-cv Document 20 Filed 02/23/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 150 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Case 2:16-cv-10696 Document 20 Filed 02/23/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 150 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION CMH HOMES, INC. Petitioner, v.
More informationManifest' Destiny: The Fate of the 'Manifest Disregard of the Law' Doctrine After Hall Street v. Mattel
The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law Volume 3 Issue 2 Article 5 4-20-2010 Manifest' Destiny: The Fate of the 'Manifest Disregard of the Law' Doctrine After Hall Street v. Mattel Karly A.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL: 12/20/2013 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationInstitutional Repository. University of Miami Law School. Jonas Cullemark. University of Miami Business Law Review
University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Business Law Review 1-1-2014 Wachovia Securities, LLC V. Brand (2012): The Fourth Circuit's Dubious Position in the Ongoing Federal
More informationCase 1:15-cv LEK-KJM Document 22 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 458 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
Case 1:15-cv-00481-LEK-KJM Document 22 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 458 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII NELSON BALBERDI, vs. Plaintiff, FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM,
More informationCase: 5:10-cv SL Doc #: 20 Filed: 07/15/11 1 of 8. PageID #: 626 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 5:10-cv-02691-SL Doc #: 20 Filed: 07/15/11 1 of 8. PageID #: 626 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION HUGUES GREGO, et al., CASE NO. 5:10CV2691 PLAINTIFFS, JUDGE
More informationArbitration Law Update. David Salton March 31, 2010
Arbitration Law Update David Salton March 31, 2010 TOPICS JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ARBITRATION AWARDS WHEN CAN AN AWARD BE OVERTURNED? WAIVING YOUR RIGHT TO ARBITRATE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT v. TEXAS ARBITRATION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION ORDER
Case 1: 1 0-cv-00386-L Y Document 53 Filed 06/02/11 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION FILED lon JUN -2 ~H \\: 48 JEFFREY H. REED, AN INDIVIDUAL,
More informationCase 1:14-cv LGS Document 15 Filed 04/08/15 Page 1 of 6. : Petitioner, : : : :
Case 114-cv-06327-LGS Document 15 Filed 04/08/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------X ILAN PREIS, Petitioner,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 10-10172 Document: 00513015487 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CHESTER SHANE MCVAY, Plaintiff - Appellant United States Court of Appeals
More informationAfter Stolt-Nielsen, Circuits Split, But AAA Filings Continue
MEALEY S TM International Arbitration Report After Stolt-Nielsen, Circuits Split, But AAA Filings Continue by Gregory A. Litt Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP New York Tina Praprotnik Duke Law
More informationNinth Circuit Denies Insurer's Gamble on Vacatur in Nevada
Arbitration Law Review Volume 3 Yearbook on Arbitration and Mediation Article 18 7-1-2011 Ninth Circuit Denies Insurer's Gamble on Vacatur in Nevada Emma M. Kline Follow this and additional works at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/arbitrationlawreview
More informationCase 2:12-cv MAK Document 49 Filed 01/11/16 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:12-cv-04165-MAK Document 49 Filed 01/11/16 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PIOTR NOWAK v. PENNSYLVANIA PROFESSIONAL SOCCER, LLC, et al.
More informationConsistent with Inconsistency: The Sixth Circuit Keeps Manifest Disregard after Hall Street
Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 2009 Issue 2 Article 12 2009 Consistent with Inconsistency: The Sixth Circuit Keeps Manifest Disregard after Hall Street John C. Steffens Follow this and additional
More informationCase 2:12-cv MAK Document 46 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ORDER
Case 212-cv-04165-MAK Document 46 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PIOTR NOWAK, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, No. 212-cv-04165-MAM vs. PENNSYLVANIA PROFESSIONAL
More informationRECONSIDERING ARBITRATION: EVALUATING THE FUTURE OF THE MANIFEST DISREGARD DOCTRINE
RECONSIDERING ARBITRATION: EVALUATING THE FUTURE OF THE MANIFEST DISREGARD DOCTRINE GRIFFIN TORONJO PIVATEAU * I. INTRODUCTION Any litigant who seeks to evade the reach of an arbitration agreement quickly
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv MR-DLH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00132-MR-DLH TRIBAL CASINO GAMING ) ENTERPRISE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) MEMORANDUM
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv MR-DLH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00030-MR-DLH TRIBAL CASINO GAMING ) ENTERPRISE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) MEMORANDUM
More information1:12-cv TLL-CEB Doc # 46 Filed 04/27/16 Pg 1 of 13 Pg ID 715 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
1:12-cv-13152-TLL-CEB Doc # 46 Filed 04/27/16 Pg 1 of 13 Pg ID 715 BERNARD J. SCHAFER, et al. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION Plaintiffs, Case No. 12-cv-13152
More informationCase 2:11-mc VAR-MKM Document 3 Filed 02/14/11 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:11-mc-50160-VAR-MKM Document 3 Filed 02/14/11 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DRAEGER SAFETY DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Plaintiff, CASE NUMBER: 11-50160
More informationManifest Disregard Standard of Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards: No Longer Good Law?
Manifest Disregard Standard of Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards: No Longer Good Law? BY JAMES E. BERGER AND VICTORIA ASHWORTH Introduction On July 7, 2008, Judge Richard J. Holwell of the U.S. District
More informationAre Arbitrators Right Even When They Are Wrong?: Second Circuit Upholds Arbitral Ruling Allowing Implicit Reference to Class Arbitration
Arbitration Law Review Volume 4 Yearbook on Arbitration and Mediation Article 26 7-1-2012 Are Arbitrators Right Even When They Are Wrong?: Second Circuit Upholds Arbitral Ruling Allowing Implicit Reference
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 8:10-cv-00543-AW Document 14 Filed 07/30/10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISION THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF GLENARDEN, Plaintiff, v. Civil
More informationArbitration vs. Litigation
Arbitration vs. Litigation Prepared and Presented by: Steve Williams CHAPTER X ARBITRATION vs. LITIGATION Most owners and contractors want to build jobs, not argue about them. But, as most owners and contractors
More informationIn and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2009 CA 1464 FIA CARD SERVICES NA VERSUS WILLIAM F WEAVER Judgment Rendered March 26 2010 Appealed from Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and
More informationx : : : : : : : : : x Plaintiffs, current and former female employees of defendant
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------- LARYSSA JOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, -v- STERLING JEWELERS, INC., Defendant. -------------------------------------
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
09-3652-ev Idea Nuova, Inc. v. GM Licensing Group, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2009 (Argued: March 24, 2010 Decided: August 9, 2010) Docket No. 09-3652-ev IDEA
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 11-3872 NOT PRECEDENTIAL NEW JERSEY REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS; NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS FUNDS and the TRUSTEES THEREOF, Appellants v. JAYEFF CONSTRUCTION
More informationCase 3:17-cv EDL Document 53 Filed 11/17/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-edl Document Filed // Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARCELLA JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Defendant. Case No.-cv-0-EDL ORDER GRANTING
More informationCase 1:08-cv JSR Document 151 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-02875-JSR Document 151 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------x LARYSSA JOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, 08 Civ.
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida LABARGA, C.J. No. SC11-2468 VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA, INC., Petitioner, vs. JUPITER MEDICAL CENTER, INC. Respondent. [July 10, 2014] Visiting Nurse Association of
More informationArbitration-Related Litigation in Texas
Arbitration-Related Litigation in Texas MARK TRACHTENBERG Overview Pre-arbitration litigation Procedures for enforcing arbitration clause Strategies for defeating arbitration clause Post-arbitration litigation
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * *
Case :0-cv-00-RLH -PAL Document Filed 0 Page of AO (Rev. 0 0 MARY ANN SUSSEX; MITCHELL PAE; MALCOLM NICHOLL and SANDY SCALISE; ERNESTO VALDEZ, SR. and ERNESTO VALDEZ, JR.; JOHN HANSON and ELIZABETH HANSON,
More informationCase 4:17-cv Document 21 Filed in TXSD on 11/21/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ORDER
Case 4:17-cv-00178 Document 21 Filed in TXSD on 11/21/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 01/25/17 Page 1 of 11. : : Petitioner, : : Respondent.
Case 117-cv-00554 Document 1 Filed 01/25/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------ x ORACLE CORPORATION,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : : : ORDER
Case 115-cv-02818-AT Document 18 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION BATASKI BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
More informationCase 8:15-cv PWG Document 34 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 6. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Southern Division
Case 8:15-cv-03290-PWG Document 34 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Southern Division SAMUEL DAVID YOUNG, * Petitioner, * v. * Civil Case No.:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON LAWRENCE HILL, ADAM WISE, ) NO. 66137-0-I and ROBERT MILLER, on their own ) behalves and on behalf of all persons ) DIVISION ONE similarly situated, )
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00487-CV Mary Alice SAIZ, Appellant v. SUSSER HOLDINGS CORPORATION SUSSER HOLDINGS CORPORATION and Stripes LLC, Appellees From the
More informationCase 2:17-cv DB Document 48 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:17-cv-00207-DB Document 48 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION HOMELAND MUNITIONS, LLC, BIRKEN STARTREE HOLDINGS, CORP., KILO CHARLIE,
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-08-00057-CV John McArdle, Appellant v. Jack Nelson IRA; Cathy Nelson, as Trustee of the Cathy Nelson IRA; Cathy Nelson, as Trustee of the Jack Nelson
More informationCase 6:14-cv CEM-TBS Document 31 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1331
Case 6:14-cv-01400-CEM-TBS Document 31 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1331 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., MARRIOTT VACATIONS
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 16-2189 MOUNTAIN VALLEY PROPERTY, INC., Plaintiff, Appellee, v. APPLIED RISK SERVICES, INC.; APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC.; APPLIED UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE
More informationRecent Developments in Federal and State Arbitration Law
Recent Developments in Federal and State Arbitration Law by Shelly L. Ewald, Senior Partner Watt Tieder Newsletter, Winter 2005-2006 Despite the extensive history and widespread adoption of arbitration
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II WAQAS SALEEMI, a single man, and FAROOQ SHARYAR, a single man, Respondents, v. DOCTOR S ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation, PUBLISHED
More informationSonic-Denver T, Inc., d/b/a Mountain States Toyota, and American Arbitration Association, Inc., JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 10CA0275 Adams County District Court No. 09CV500 Honorable Katherine R. Delgado, Judge Ken Medina, Milton Rosas, and George Sourial, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as Ward v. Ohio State Waterproofing, 2012-Ohio-4432.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) JAMES WARD, et al. C.A. No. 26203 Appellees v. OHIO STATE
More informationS17G1097. BROWN et al. v. RAC ACCEPTANCE EAST, LLC. After RAC Acceptance East, LLC swore out a warrant for Mira Brown s
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: January 29, 2018 S17G1097. BROWN et al. v. RAC ACCEPTANCE EAST, LLC. NAHMIAS, Justice. After RAC Acceptance East, LLC swore out a warrant for Mira Brown s arrest
More informationDA Nolt Inc v. United Union of Roofers, Water
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-23-2016 DA Nolt Inc v. United Union of Roofers, Water Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationThe Battle Over Class Action: Second Circuit Holds that Class Action Waiver for Antitrust Actions Unenforceable Under the Federal Arbitration Act
Arbitration Law Review Volume 4 Yearbook on Arbitration and Mediation Article 24 7-1-2012 The Battle Over Class Action: Second Circuit Holds that Class Action Waiver for Antitrust Actions Unenforceable
More informationCase 8:15-cv GJH Document 12 Filed 09/19/16 Page 1 of 6. SOllt!leTII Division
Case 8:15-cv-03528-GJH Document 12 Filed 09/19/16 Page 1 of 6 CHOICE HOTELS INTERNA T10NAL, Plaintiff, v. FILED IN THE UNITED, STATES DISTRICT ~JJ.s...WSTRICT COURT \Vf~,tI~lT OF MARYLAND FOR THE DISTRICT
More informationTENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before KELLY, TYMKOVICH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
HUNGRY HORSE LLC, a New Mexico limited liability company, FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 19, 2014 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court
More informationUnited States Supreme Court Considering A California Appellate Court Opinion Invalidating A Class Action Arbitration Waiver
United States Supreme Court Considering A California Appellate Court Opinion Invalidating A Class Action Arbitration Waiver By: Roland C. Goss August 31, 2015 On October 6, 2015, the second day of this
More informationCase 2:16-cv JHS Document 16 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA OPINION
Case 2:16-cv-05042-JHS Document 16 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FRANLOGIC SCOUT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, et al., v. Petitioners, CIVIL
More informationPRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 16-3356 ALISSA MOON; YASMEEN DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BREATHLESS INC, a/k/a Vision Food
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KAREN MACKALL, v. Plaintiff, HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL STAFFING, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-who ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION Re:
More informationCase: 4:12-cv SL Doc #: 39 Filed: 07/18/13 1 of 12. PageID #: 686 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 4:12-cv-01789-SL Doc #: 39 Filed: 07/18/13 1 of 12. PageID #: 686 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION PHYSICIANS INSURANCE CAPITAL, ) CASE NO. 4:12CV1789 LLC,
More informationMohammed Mekuns v. Capella Education Co
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-19-2016 Mohammed Mekuns v. Capella Education Co Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN BRETT DANIELS and BRETT DANIELS PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 15-CV-1334 SIMON PAINTER, TIMOTHY LAWSON, INTERNATIONAL SPECIAL ATTRACTIONS,
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: AUGUST 4, 2017; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2016-CA-000498-MR GREYSON MEERS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE CHARLES L.
More informationMay 7, By: Christopher M. Mason, Steven M. Richards and Brian M. Childs
May 7, 2010 The United States Supreme Court speaks loudly in Stolt- Nielsen: The Federal Arbitration Action Act does not permit class arbitrations when the parties have been silent on the subject By: Christopher
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-20-2006 Murphy v. Fed Ins Co Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-1814 Follow this and
More informationMajority Opinion > UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Majority Opinion > Pagination * BL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ASPIC ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ECC CENTCOM CONSTRUCTORS LLC; ECC INTERNATIONAL
More informationNuzzi v. Aupaircare Inc
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-12-2009 Nuzzi v. Aupaircare Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1210 Follow this and
More informationSalvino Steel Iron v. Safeco Ins Co Amer
2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-23-2006 Salvino Steel Iron v. Safeco Ins Co Amer Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-1449
More informationCIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:1073 Priority Send Enter Closed JS-5/ Scan Only TITLE: In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Barry Sonnenfeld v. United Talent Agency, Inc. ========================================================================
More informationCase 1:11-cv CMA-CBS Document 98 Filed 12/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18
Case 1:11-cv-00971-CMA-CBS Document 98 Filed 12/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18 Civil Action No. 11-cv-00971-CMA-CBS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M.
More informationGenerational Equity LLC v. Richard Schomaker
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-19-2015 Generational Equity LLC v. Richard Schomaker Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationCase 3:11-cv HZ Document 75 Filed 08/07/13 Page 1 of 14
Case 3:11-cv-01358-HZ Document 75 Filed 08/07/13 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON GOLDEN TEMPLE OF OREGON, LLC an Oregon Limited Liability Company, v. Plaintiff,
More informationPRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J.
PRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J. COTTON CREEK CIRCLES, LLC, ET AL. v. Record No. 090283 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN February 25,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM. Frango Grille USA, Inc. v. Pepe s Franchising Ltd., et al.
Case No. CV 14 2086 DSF (PLAx) Date 7/21/14 Title Frango Grille USA, Inc. v. Pepe s Franchising Ltd., et al. Present: The Honorable DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge Debra Plato Deputy Clerk
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION CITYWIDE TESTING AND INSPECTION INC. NO CA-0018 COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL INC.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION CITYWIDE TESTING AND INSPECTION INC. VERSUS SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL INC. * * * * NO. 2012-CA-0018 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * * APPEAL FROM CIVIL
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 14 011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEE MORE LIGHT INVESTMENTS, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MORGAN STANLEY
More informationCase 1:10-cv UU Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2010 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:10-cv-23024-UU Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2010 Page 1 of 10 DE BEERS CENTENARY AG, v. Petitioner, JOHN-ROBERT: HASSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:07-CV DCK
United States Surety v. Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership et al Doc. 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:07-CV-00381-DCK UNITED
More informationORDER AFFIRMED, JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 08CA0162 City and County of Denver District Court No. 07CV7980 Honorable Christina M. Habas, Judge Harinderpal S. Ahluwalia, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. QFA
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION. No. 4:15-CV-103-FL ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION No. 4:15-CV-103-FL CARL E. DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORP.; BLUE ARBOR, INC.; and TESI SCREENING,
More informationBishop v. GNC Franchising LLC
2007 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-23-2007 Bishop v. GNC Franchising LLC Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-2302 Follow
More informationCase 2:13-cv MMB Document 78 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:13-cv-02930-MMB Document 78 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IMPALA PLATINUM HOLDINGS LIMITED, et al. v. CIVIL ACTION NO.
More informationCase 6:16-cv LSC Document 14 Filed 08/11/16 Page 1 of 23
Case 6:16-cv-00217-LSC Document 14 Filed 08/11/16 Page 1 of 23 FILED 2016 Aug-11 PM 04:08 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA JASPER
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE GRAND SUMMIT HOTEL CONDOMINIUM UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION. L.B.O. HOLDING, INC. d/b/a ATTITASH MOUNTAIN RESORT
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More information{ 1} Appellant/Cross-Appellee, Cornwell Quality Tools Co. ( Cornwell ), appeals
[Cite as Bachrach v. Cornwell Quality Tool Co., Inc., 2014-Ohio-5778.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DAVID BACHRACH, et al. C.A. No. 27113 Appellees/Cross-Appellants
More informationAMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION CLASS ACTION AND EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION CLASS ACTION AND EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL Elizabeth M Laughlin, Claimant v. Case No.: #74 160 Y 00068 12 VMware, Inc., Respondent Partial Final Award on Clause Construction
More informationOPINION. No CV. CITY OF LAREDO, Appellant. Homero MOJICA and International Association of Firefighters Local 1390, Appellees
OPINION No. CITY OF LAREDO, Appellant v. Homero MOJICA and International Association of Firefighters Local 1390, Appellees From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010-CVQ-000755-D2
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED AUG 3 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FRANK VARELA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Nos. 09-2453 & 09-2517 PRATE INSTALLATIONS, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant, CHICAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, Defendant-Appellant/
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 12-55 JASON L. MOURET, ET AL. VERSUS BELMONT HOMES, INC., ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. LANDRY,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. No. 34,846
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note
More informationArbitration after Hall Street
Appellate Advocacy Significant Questions, Little Guidance By Aaron S. Bayer and Joseph M. Gillis Arbitration after Hall Street The scope of the Supreme Court s decision and its long-term impact on arbitration
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-11-2008 Blackmon v. Iverson Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-4416 Follow this and additional
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Case No. 19-cv HSG 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PG&E CORPORATION, et al., Case No. -cv-00-hsg 0 v. Plaintiffs, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW
More informationCase 4:18-cv O Document 26 Filed 07/30/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID 1441
Case 4:18-cv-00599-O Document 26 Filed 07/30/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID 1441 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION AIR CENTER HELICOPTERS, INC., Plaintiff,
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 16 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:288
Case: 1:13-cv-00685 Document #: 16 Filed: 04/10/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:288 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION I-WEN CHANG LIU and THOMAS S. CAMPBELL
More informationEugene Wolstenholme v. Joseph Bartels
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-18-2013 Eugene Wolstenholme v. Joseph Bartels Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 11-3767
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 15-1620 Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC lllllllllllllllllllllpetitioner v. National Labor Relations Board lllllllllllllllllllllrespondent ------------------------------
More informationCase 0:15-cv BB Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2016 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:15-cv-62247-BB Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2016 Page 1 of 15 PAVEL BATTLES, v. Plaintiff, AMERICAN VAN LINES, INC., Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
More information